clear_human_gate

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark this destructive/idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: which gate classes this tool refuses, that a withdrawal comment is a silent no-op, that agent keys get a 403 naming the alternative, and that the caller must re-read human_gate afterward because a posted comment is not a cleared gate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action, then ordered by branch, and every clause carries distinct behavioral information (no-op warning, refusal path, 403 path, re-read). It is dense and jargon-heavy with long parentheticals, costing a little parseability, but the length is largely earned by the branching logic.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers the full decision surface for a destructive, no-output-schema tool: preconditions, per-branch outcomes, refusal behavior, authentication failures, and the required post-call verification step. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single task_id parameter is already documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description enriches the surrounding workflow but adds no syntax or semantics for the parameter itself; the clear_path concept it discusses comes from human_gate_info, not from this tool's inputs. Baseline 3 is correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Release a human gate') and immediately differentiates itself from set_human_gate, human_gate_info, and get_task, naming the exact precondition (read human_gate_info via get_task(full=true)). An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use branching keyed on clear_path: 'clear_endpoint' means this tool acts, 'withdraw_marker' means it refuses and you post a negator comment, and everything else is user-only with a 403 naming the reachable exit. Both the success and refusal paths are spelled out, leaving no inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.